GAT_00:show me: Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.

Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.

I don't think it's so much deregulation as that it'll be a very narrow DMCA exemption for device unlocking.

Personally, I think the Copyright Office was doing some goofy gas when it issued its revised DMCA exemptions. What is the logic for making rooting and jailbreaking a phone perfectly legal for phones (i.e. exempt from DMCA), but illegal for tablets (i.e. not exempt from the DMCA) while simultaneously making it illegal to unlock your phone for different carriers?

It's this bizarre hodgepodge of exemptions that simply makes no sense whatsoever.

If I buy a computer or gadget or tool from you, You no longer get to tell me what to do with it. It is mine.Unless I mod it to kill, you STFU and take my money.Once.That is it.It's a machine.I bought it.Kiss it goodbye.You want to make money selling widgets?Sell more widgets.If I figure out how to hack a satellite and get free calls for life, fark you.How the fark do you think the farking internet was invented?

Can we please lock stolen cellphones? Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones. We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems. However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.

Perspective matters. If you emphasize the legalizing part, you emphasize the government giving back, as if they are being generous and offering something new. De-criminalize points out that it's only illegal because of contractual profitability butthurtz.

TuteTibiImperes:TheDirtyNacho: TuteTibiImperes: crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free. However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal). Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.

All of these channels would do better as streaming over a network vs a cable slot. Ala carte will likely mean the death of niche channels - over cable tv - all the more reason to cut the cord as they say.

I cut it two years ago, switched to a Roku and I don't miss it one bit. Some shows are hard to come by though because of contractual compensation issues. These issues would get straightened out much faster if ala carte becomes a reality.

Cable TV is destined to become the realm of reality tv and "i don't care what's on" kind of viewing. Everything else should move to streaming.

I like the idea of streaming, but ISPs would have to give up on broadband caps to make it work as a primary viewing solution (and since most ISPs are also the cable company, they have little incentive to do that...). I have Dish, and to get a lot of the out-of-market sports channels I want (I live in SEC land, but follow CAA Football/Basketball), I have to have what is pretty much the top tier they offer. At the end of the day even though I don't watch the vast majority of the channels I have, I like having access to them because if something comes on that I do want to watch on one of them, I can. I could probably save a bunch just by buying the games I want to see via the websites/streaming-providers of the schools hosting the games and just getting the rest of what I want from iTunes, Amazon and Netflix, but paying p ...

I'm not sure we have broadband caps, or if we do, they're high enough that typical viewing patterns don't touch them. Most of the money on a cable bill actually goes right back out to the channel owners.

There's still much work to be done in streaming. It would behoove providers like Amazon to give free show trials - watch the first episode, if you like it? Then pay for the rest of the season. This still comes out far less costly than paying a $120+ cable bill every month. There may well be some kind of legal or contractual reason why they don't do this more.

There also still isn't much in the way of standard compensation contracts with regards to streaming, which is why bizarre things like some shows on Hulu can be watched on a computer, but not a device like a Roku, even though you could just hook your laptop up to a TV. Netflix seems to have avoided this somehow.

I hope with a la carte becoming a reality these issues will get resolved faster. The present system of cable tv content distribution is not a well functioning or efficient market.

LTE was supposed to be that standard... The marriage of the best parts of CDMA and GSM into one beautiful thing. Then the carriers got a hold of it.

It should still be possible to make a universal LTE phone, but you'd need a quadband radio covering 700/1700/1900/2100mhz just to cover the spectrum of all of the US carriers. Throw in other countries using 1500/1800/2600 and other frequency ranges and a truly universal world phone ends up being a lot more complicated than it should really have to be. Plus, I don't think that all of the US carriers are even doing voice over LTE yet.

TheDirtyNacho:TuteTibiImperes: crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free. However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal). Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.

All of these channels would do better as streaming over a network vs a cable slot. Ala carte will likely mean the death of niche channels - over cable tv - all the more reason to cut the cord as they say.

I cut it two years ago, switched to a Roku and I don't miss it one bit. Some shows are hard to come by though because of contractual compensation issues. These issues would get straightened out much faster if ala carte becomes a reality.

Cable TV is destined to become the realm of reality tv and "i don't care what's on" kind of viewing. Everything else should move to streaming.

I like the idea of streaming, but ISPs would have to give up on broadband caps to make it work as a primary viewing solution (and since most ISPs are also the cable company, they have little incentive to do that...). I have Dish, and to get a lot of the out-of-market sports channels I want (I live in SEC land, but follow CAA Football/Basketball), I have to have what is pretty much the top tier they offer. At the end of the day even though I don't watch the vast majority of the channels I have, I like having access to them because if something comes on that I do want to watch on one of them, I can. I could probably save a bunch just by buying the games I want to see via the websites/streaming-providers of the schools hosting the games and just getting the rest of what I want from iTunes, Amazon and Netflix, but paying per show would make me think to much about whether something was worth watching or not, and I'd probably err on the side of saving the money in most cases and not expose myself to a lot of things I've ended up liking.

My father and I wanted to switch me back to Verizon this weekend to take advantage of a special offer that would have cut back on the bill. Couldn't do it because of contract restrictions, even though doing so would have sacrificed a $10/mo dumbphone line for a $40+/mo smartphone line. Verizon would have come out on top and they still wouldn't let us.

Make CDMA networks and phone contracts illegal. They're hurting competition. I'm tired of every dick in the EU getting better smartphone choices when that continent has done jack shiat to develop those sorts of devices.

My bill with AT&T would be the same whether I paid for my phone in full or if I take the subsidized price with a contract, so I don't mind signing up for another two years every two years to pay $199 or $99 for a phone instead of $500. Yes, I know there are MVNOs that offer cheaper service, but many of them don't support all of the features that you get with the flagship network contract like visual voicemail, or they have much more limited 4G access or other gotchas.

They have all of the extras in other countries, contract-free. They've found a way to make money doing it... so much, in fact, that three of the four major American telcos are either partly owned or wholly owned by foreign companies in the same field (Deutsche Telekom = T-Mobile, Vodafone = 45% of Verizon, Softbank = potentially 70% of Sprint PCS).It's time to make some changes. I usually don't like government intervention, but... tough.

Rhypskallion:Can we please lock stolen cellphones? Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones. We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems. However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.

Metro PCS is the big one. They take a lot of stolen phones on as subscribers. We have databases and everything showing it.

My father and I wanted to switch me back to Verizon this weekend to take advantage of a special offer that would have cut back on the bill. Couldn't do it because of contract restrictions, even though doing so would have sacrificed a $10/mo dumbphone line for a $40+/mo smartphone line. Verizon would have come out on top and they still wouldn't let us.

Make CDMA networks and phone contracts illegal. They're hurting competition. I'm tired of every dick in the EU getting better smartphone choices when that continent has done jack shiat to develop those sorts of devices.

crabsno termites:TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free. However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal). Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.

Rhypskallion:Can we please lock stolen cellphones? Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones. We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems. However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.

You may not have looked into this recently, but it's already happening. AT&T and Verizon are now actively blocking stolen phones by the IMEI's. I think T-Mobile, too. Google around a bit and you'll find it.Ironically, it's because congress finally figured out what you said... other countries have been doing it for a while, and threatened to start making laws about it.

There's a hole in there response big enough to drive a truck through. They will only support unlocking /if/ your phone is paid for and off contract. For most people that means your two year old phone that has seen better days and that you don't want to use anymore. The majority of people with a smartphone are going to gain nothing from this at all.

Unless you pay cash for the full price of your phone up front (typically $5-$600 for a smart phone) you won't gain from this at all. Even if you do, nothing says that the carrier can't play games by claiming your phone is unsupported or some other such thing. This is nothing more than political hot air, move along, move along.

Perspective matters. If you emphasize the legalizing part, you emphasize the government giving back, as if they are being generous and offering something new. De-criminalize points out that it's only illegal because of contractual profitability butthurtz.

"De-criminalize" is often used to refer to a middle ground between something being legal and something being illegal, often in regards to drug law enforcement. I don't think that is where anyone wants to go with phone-unlocking.

heypete:2. Phones without network-specific crap. (That is, I want "stock" firmware from the phone manufacturer rather than from the network.)

Verizon used to be the absolute world's worst about that garbage. They disabled a number of a phone's OEM built-in functions and required a fee to 'activate' them, or forced people to purchase apps to do something that the phone is designed to do natively. Not that many years ago, they even charged people a fee to enable bluetooth on some of their bluetooth models and locked early GPS chips to be accessible only by purchased-from-Verizon software.

heypete:I'd like to see three things:1. Phones which are not locked to a particular network.2. Phones without network-specific crap. (That is, I want "stock" firmware from the phone manufacturer rather than from the network.)3. Coordination with international authorities to block phones that have been stolen.